Of all the energy issues circulating through the Oregon Legislature, none is more acrimonious than proposals to build new terminals and pipelines to import liquefied natural gas.

The issue has spawned peculiar alliances, bitter debate and created public backlash against several legislators.

On one side are some of the best funded and politically savvy interest groups in the state: regulated utilities, energy companies and big business groups.

Since the beginning of last year's election cycle, LNG supporters have marinated lawmakers with cash contributions. They have employed veteran lobbyists to work the Capitol, spreading a professionally tailored message focused on job creation and energy security that has sold well to legislators looking for relief from the recession. That, in turn, has made LNG projects a top priority for a core constituency of the Democratic majority: organized labor.

Facing off against them is a grass-roots collection of landowners, county farm bureaus and community activists who have aligned with another Democratic Party mainstay: the environmental lobby.

The environmentalists are hardly political neophytes, and they spend plenty on lobbyists and legislative candidates, too. But their anti-LNG message -- that Oregon shouldn't hitch its energy future to speculative and environmentally damaging projects -- is a more difficult sell. And for all their passion, placard waving and demonstrations, they appear to have been outmaneuvered in Salem.

Critics of LNG suggest there's a good reason for that: campaign contributions.

"There's big money at play in these projects, and what we're seeing as a result is an enormous amount of money poured on our Legislature," said Paul Sansone, a Gales Creek landowner and former energy executive whose land is in the path of an LNG pipeline. "The constituents aren't being represented, the lobbyists are."

The money trail is a wide one. Oregon is one of the few states that has no limit on the size or source of donations to candidates for state office. The companies and business groups backing LNG have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to support candidates.

Energy executives and legislators say there is no quid pro quo with their giving and getting. Lawmakers say opponents have pushed impractical legislation and fought an ill-advised proxy battle against LNG pipelines by targeting a bill that makes sense on other grounds.

"I have a conversation with anyone who wants one," said Rep. Tobias Read, D-Beaverton, who has taken heat from LNG opponents over his handling of hearings on two LNG-related bills as chairman of the House Sustainability and Economic Development Committee.

Read supports LNG and says Oregon will rely more on natural gas as it weans itself from coal and transitions to renewable power. But that position, he says, has nothing to do with several thousand dollars in campaign contributions from energy companies. LNG backers, he said, "can expect a fair hearing, as anyone who wants to talk to me does."

NW Natural's clout

Yet campaign spending is clearly targeted with influence in mind.

Northwest Natural Gas Co. is the most prominent local player in the LNG debate. The company says LNG would diversify its supply and bring ratepayers lower gas shipping costs. But it is focused on the bottom line, too.

NW Natural has proposed a major pipeline that could give it a lucrative role in transporting and storing the vast quantities of gas that would flow through the proposed Bradwood Landing LNG terminal. And NW Natural's chief executive, Gregg Kantor, sits at the center of the state's energy discussion as a member of the governor's energy planning and global warming commissions.

To ensure the company is heard in the Legislature, it spent about $210,000 on campaign contributions since the beginning of 2008. The resulting 150 contributions went to 51 of the state's 60 representatives and 24 of 30 senators. It provided $10,500 to political action committees run by Democratic leaders in the House and Senate and another $11,000 to Republican leadership. And the company put $18,000 into political action committees run by business trade groups, which in turn, donate to candidates and leaderships PACs.

Making campaign contributions "doesn't buy you a vote," Kantor told the crowd assembled for the company's annual shareholder meeting in late May. But "it does allow you to have a conversation."

The other big individual donor directly associated with LNG is NorthernStar Natural Gas Inc, the Houston-based development company that has proposed Bradwood Landing. NorthernStar quadrupled its campaign contributions last year, sprinkling almost $80,000 among candidates and leadership caucuses. Donations went to more than one-third of the state's representatives and senators, as well as their leadership PACs.

NorthernStar was also one of the most active lobbyists last year, spending $145,000. That's more than all but six individual companies in the state -- three of them electric utilities.

Charles Deister, NorthernStar's director of government relations and the one-time chief of staff for former House Speaker Karen Minnis, says the company supports individuals that "share an interest in promoting a reliable, affordable clean energy future."

He points out that not all recipients of its contributions supported the legislation NorthernStar is backing and that organizations that oppose LNG, including the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, outspend NorthernStar.

That's true enough. OLCV gave about $125,000 in contributions -- compared with NortherStar's nearly $80,000 -- in the last election, mostly as in-kind contributions such as staff time, phone calls or mailers.

Jonathan Poisner, executive director of OLCV, says his organization is tracking a much broader slate of issues than LNG. But he has no question that contributions provide access.

"We wouldn't exist as an organization if it didn't work," said Poisner. "That's why corporations do it, and it's why most states have laws against it."

Campaign contributions

Through a wider lens, combined contributions from organizations backing LNG -- including organized labor, Associated Oregon Industries, the Oregon Business Association, Portland General Electric Co., Avista Corp., the Williams Companies, etc. -- would appear to dwarf those of opponents.

House Speaker Dave Hunt, D-Gladstone, has raised about $475,000 since the beginning of 2008 and ran unopposed. Contributions included about $45,000 from energy companies, utilities and others supporting LNG. Hunt is supportive of the gas terminals and works for the Columbia River Channel Coalition. But he says campaign contributions have no impact on his voting.

"As speaker, I've received contributions from proponents and opponents," of LNG, Hunt said. "My perspective in general is informed by our long-term goal to get to 100 percent renewable energy. We're a long way from 100 percent, and we have to have some interim plans."

The LNG debate has already spawned some unusual backlash for legislators. Hunt has had constituents take out newspaper ads denouncing him. Two opponents of the LNG projects took the unusual step of picketing Read's home because of what they perceived as his biases on the issue. Other House members have felt compelled to explain their votes on the Democratic online forum, Blue Oregon.

Rep. Brad Witt, D-Clatskanie, who ran unopposed in his last election, has been excoriated in his district for sponsoring a bill to make a pipeline-permitting change proposed by NorthernStar. Witt, a longtime union member and leader, says he sponsored the bill to protect landowners from unnecessary condemnation. But many constituents don't see it that way.

"It would have been one thing if he voted quietly on this bill, but to sponsor it?" said Larry Taylor, chairman of the Clatsop County Democrats. "He's offended a lot of people and raised the discourse to such a level with this that finally someone might break loose to run against him."